Vendor evidence profile
Kaspersky: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on Kaspersky for endpoint security (edr and xdr) decisions: 53 items from 5 kinds of source, covering October 2010 to July 2026. Every item on this page links to the source it came from, carrying the date that source states and saying so plainly where it states none.
In one line
This record holds 23 advisories attributed to Kaspersky products across 53 evidence items in total, none of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 100 percent of the record comes from sources Kaspersky cannot edit. Whether Kaspersky suits your decision is not on this page: that depends on your criteria, your compliance scope and your shortlist, and this record does not know them.
Evidence items
53
in this record
Attributed advisories
23
none known exploited
Authoritative share
49%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 17, 2026
sources re-queried
How independent is this record
Sources are not equal. A vendor can rewrite its own website overnight and optimise it for whatever a language model is likely to quote. It cannot edit a government vulnerability register or a years-old discussion thread. Every item in this record is classified by how much the vendor could influence it, and the score below is the weighted result.
Independence of this record
Objectivity score 80/100
- Authoritative
- 26 items, 49 percent
- Independent
- 27 items, 51 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 0 items, 0 percent
100 percent of this record comes from sources Kaspersky does not control. The remainder is Kaspersky's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the Kaspersky record, with the body that operates each one. No rating, score or ranking is taken from anywhere, and no vendor pays to appear in this index or to change what it says.
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 25 | Mar 27, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 1 | Feb 07, 2025 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 20 | Mar 05, 2026 |
| Practitioner discussions | Reddit, public threads | Independent | 4 | May 07, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 3 | Jul 17, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions Kaspersky in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of Kaspersky: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, Kaspersky as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 23 records passed that test.
- CVE-2025-64984mediumCVSS 5.1Nov 20, 2025
Kaspersky has fixed a security issue in Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Linux (any version with anti-virus databases prior to 18.11.2025), Kaspersky Industrial CyberSecurity for Linux Nodes…
- WID-SEC-2025-0293mediumCVSS 5.3Feb 07, 2025
Affected products: Kaspersky Anti-Virus, Kaspersky Internet Security
- CVE-2024-13614mediumCVSS 5.3Feb 06, 2025
Kaspersky has fixed a security issue in Kaspersky Anti-Virus SDK for Windows, Kaspersky Security for Virtualization Light Agent, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Windows, Kaspersky Small…
- CVE-2023-23349lowCVSS 2.2Mar 22, 2024
Kaspersky has fixed a security issue in Kaspersky Password Manager (KPM) for Windows that allowed a local user to recover the auto-filled credentials from a memory dump when the KPM…
- CVE-2019-8271Mar 09, 2019
UltraVNC revision 1211 has a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in VNC server code inside file transfer handler, which can potentially result code execution.
- CVE-2019-8280Mar 09, 2019
UltraVNC revision 1203 has out-of-bounds access vulnerability in VNC client inside RAW decoder, which can potentially result code execution.
17 further attributed records are held in the pool. DecisionOS shows the full set against the components you actually run.
What practitioners report
Public threads in which engineers and administrators discuss running this product. Only threads naming Kaspersky in their own title are listed, so a discussion about someone else's incident cannot end up under this vendor. Not curated for sentiment: 23 threads in the record, most recent first.
- r/cybersecurityMay 07, 2026Independent
Successor for Kaspersky Endpoint Security
- r/sysadminApr 27, 2026Independent
Kaspersky recently disclosed PhantomRPC, a privilege escalation technique affecting all Windows versions (tested on Server 2022/2025)
- r/cybersecurityApr 27, 2026Independent
Kaspersky recently disclosed PhantomRPC, a privilege escalation technique affecting all Windows versions (tested on Server 2022/2025)
- Hacker NewsMar 05, 2026Independent
Kaspersky says Coruna iPhone exploit kit isn't connected NSA-linked operation
- Hacker NewsFeb 28, 2025Independent
Notorious Malware, Spam Host "Prospero" Moves to Kaspersky Lab
The source ledger counts 1 further thread on these platforms that mention Kaspersky somewhere in the discussion without naming it in the title. They are searched and counted, and they are not listed as reports about this vendor.
Independent coverage
Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and neutral technology press that name Kaspersky. This section runs on a fixed list of such outlets rather than on whatever a web search returns for the company name, because that search is dominated by sales-intelligence profiles and directory listings which say nothing about the product. Social networks and press-release wires are excluded outright.
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
Kaspersky Lab - Wikipedia
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Kaspersky Enterprise Software and Services Reviews
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
Kaspersky Anti-Virus - Wikipedia
What Kaspersky publishes about itself
The vendor's own documentation, kept separate from everything above and marked as vendor-controlled. It is useful, and it is a claim until an independent source confirms it.
What this record cannot tell you
A record is only trustworthy if it is explicit about its holes. These are the ones in the Kaspersky record right now.
A further 3 register entries mention Kaspersky without naming a product of Kaspersky as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Whether Kaspersky is the right choice is not on this page
A record of what is true about a vendor is one half of a decision. The other half is your context: which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs, what is a hard no, and who has to sign the result off. No public page can know that, and any page that claims to rank vendors for you is guessing at it.
Typical criteria for this category
Needs your case- Detection Accuracy (MITRE ATT&CK coverage)weight
- MDR / Managed Detection & Responseweight
- Deployment Complexityweight
- Automated Response / Remediationweight
- SIEM Integrationweight
Criteria shown as examples for endpoint security (edr and xdr). Weighting and fit are properties of your decision, not of the vendor, so they are not published here.
What DecisionOS adds on top of this record
- The vendor scored against your criteria with your weighting, not against a generic ranking
- A dealbreaker check against your hard constraints: data residency, contract terms, existing stack
- A side-by-side view of the alternatives on your shortlist, built from this same evidence pool
- This evidence mapped onto your compliance scope: NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2
- A decision memo your board can read, with the trade-offs and the reasoning on the record
Questions this page answers
Is Kaspersky a safe choice?
The public record holds 23 advisories attributed to Kaspersky products and 53 evidence items in total. None of them appears in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. Whether that is acceptable depends on your risk appetite, your compliance scope and the alternatives on your shortlist, none of which a public page can know. This page reports the record; it does not rate the vendor.
Where does the Kaspersky data on this page come from?
From 5 kinds of source: European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; CERT-Bund security advisories, operated by BSI, Federal Republic of Germany; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads; Practitioner discussions, operated by Reddit, public threads; Analyst, review and reference sources, operated by Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press. Every item carries its source URL and, where the source states one, its date.
Does Kaspersky pay to appear in this index?
No. There is no paid placement, no sponsored profile and no way for a vendor to change what the record says. Vendors are listed because their category comes up in enterprise technology decisions. Corrections to a specific entry can be sent to [email protected] and are checked against the source.
How much of the Kaspersky record is the vendor's own material?
0 percent. The remaining 100 percent comes from sources Kaspersky does not control. Vendor-published material stays in the record and is labelled as vendor-controlled rather than counted as independent confirmation.
Why does this page not say whether Kaspersky is better than the alternatives?
Because better only exists relative to a decision. Which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs and what counts as a dealbreaker are properties of the buyer, not of the vendor. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool and scores it against the criteria of an actual decision, which is where a comparison becomes meaningful.
How this record is built
Sources are queried on a schedule, not on request. Findings are stored with the source URL, the event date and a content hash, so the same item is never counted twice and every statement stays traceable to where it came from.
Nothing on this page is written by a language model. Counts are counts, dates are the dates the sources carry, and titles are the sources' own wording. Where a section is empty, that is a finding in itself and is stated as one.
Corrections are welcome. If an entry is wrong or an attribution is off, write to [email protected] and it gets checked against the source.
Citing this page
nexalign GmbH, Kaspersky: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 17, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/kaspersky.
Other vendors in endpoint security (edr and xdr)
The whole field is on one page: every endpoint security (edr and xdr) vendor with a published record, with the size of each.
Trend Micro
91 evidence items from 6 sources
ESET
64 evidence items from 6 sources
Elastic Security
64 evidence items from 7 sources
Trellix
60 evidence items from 5 sources
Sophos
58 evidence items from 7 sources
WithSecure
58 evidence items from 3 sources
Turn this record into a decision you can defend
DecisionOS takes the same evidence pool this page is built from, weighs it against the criteria of your actual decision, and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.